Geoffroy (II)

Viscount of Châteaudun, 1003×4? - ca. 1038×9.

Between 1004 and the 1030's, various records
show that the viscount of Châteaudun was named Geoffroy.
Unfortunately, there has not been agreement on whether these
records concern a single Geoffroy, or two viscounts Geoffroy in
father-son succession. In 1004, a viscount Geoffroy appears in a
charter ["signum Gaufredi vicecomitis" Cart.
Marmoutier Dunois, 4 (#3)]. Between 1015 and 1023, a viscount
Geoffroy and his son Geoffroy appear together as witnesses
["S. Hugonis archiepiscopi. ... S. Guasfredi
vicecomitis. Item Guasfredi, filii ejus" Lex (1892),
145 (Pièces justificatives #13)]. However, it is not clear
whether the Geoffroy who was viscount in the 1030's is the father
or the son in this record. This is discussed in the Commentary
section. Between 1007 and 1029, viscount Geoffroy appears with
his son Hugues and wife Helvise ["Ego Gaufredus
vicecomes, ... S. Gauzfredi vicecomitis, ... S. Hugonis, filius
ipsius vicecomitis. S. Helvidis, uxoris ejus." Cart.
S.-Père de Chartres, 2: 400-1 (#2)]. In the first year of king
Henri I of France (20 July 1031 - 19 July 1032), Geoffroy,
viscount of Châteaudun, in his foundation charter for
Saint-Denis de Nogent, mentioned his sons Hugues and Rotrou, his avunculus
Bouchard, and his mother Melisende, and included his wife Helvise
as a witness ["... ego Gauffridus, Castridunensium
vicecomes, ... cum consensu filiorum meorum Hugonis videlicet et
Rotroci, ... et terram Burcardi avunculi mei, ... Post mortem
autem matris mee Milesendis, dono ecclesiam de Campo-Rotundo, ...
+ S. domini Gaufridi, vicecomitis ... + S. Hugonis, filii domini
Gaufridi vicecomitis. + S. Rotroci, fratris ejus. + S. Eleusie,
matris eorum. ..." Cart. S.-Denis de Nogent, 13-19
(#5)]. Geoffroy, viscount of Châteaudun signs as a witness on 16
April 1034 ["Gaufridus, vicecomes Dunensium"
Lex (1892), 155 (Pièces justificatives #21)], and on 27 March
1035 ["Signum Gosfredi vicecomitis" Lex
(1892), 168 (Pièces justificatives #7)]. Geoffroy was
assassinated at Chartres, probably about 1038 or 1039 [see below
under date of death].

Date of birth: Unknown.
Place of birth: Unknown.

Date of death: ca. 1038×9.Place of
death: Chartres.A charter of his son Rotrou for
Saint-Denis de Nogent on 11 January 1078 states that Geoffroy was
assassinated as he was coming out of the church of Notre-Dame de
Chartres ["Interea vero inopina mors, apud urbem
Carnotensem, eum, ab ecclesia matris Domini redeuntem, furtivis
gladiis invasit, ..." Cart. S.-Denis de Nogent, 21
(#6)]. Another version of the charter adds the detail that
Geoffroy was surrounded by his knights at the time ["Interea
ergo improvisa mors in Carnotina urbe eum ab ecclesia Matris
Domini redeuntem atque suorum militum longo ordine circumdatum
furtivis anticipavit gladiis, ..." Cart. Cluny, 4: 634
(#3517)]. The date is subject to some uncertainty. Geoffroy
appears to have been recently deceased at the time of a 1038×40
charter of his son Hugues ["Post mortem vero vicecomitis
Gausfredi, cum filius ejus Hugo patris successisset in honorem,
... " Cart. Marmoutier Dunois, 2 (#1)].

Probable father:Fulcois,
count [of Mortagne?].Geoffroy's son Rotrou names his avus
Fulcois in one record [see below under Rotrou]. Since Rotrou's
maternal grandmother is otherwise accounted for, Fulcois was
probably his paternal grandfather and thus father of Geoffroy.
See the Commentary section below for a more detailed discussion.

Mother:Melisende,
still living 1031.As noted above, Geoffroy mentioned his
mother Melisende in a charter of 1031×2.

Spouse: Helvise, living 1031, daughter of Rainard, lord of
Pithiviers, and his wife Helvise.
André de Fleury states that Hugues de Mortagne was a nephew of
[Odalric], bishop [of Orléans]. Odalric is not explicitly named
until the next chapter, but it is clear that it is he who was
meant, because it is stated later in the same chapter that
another nephew of the said bishop was another Hugues, Hugues
Bardoul, who is known to have been a nephew of Odalric ["...
Hugo Mauritaniensis, vir admodum strenuus in rebus bellicis et
genere nobilis, nepos prætaxati antistitis, ... Cujus obitum
comperiens, alter præfati pontificis nepos, dictus et idem Hugo,
agnomeine Bardulfus, ..." André de Fleury, Miracula
Sancti Benedicti, iii, 18, Mirac. S. Ben., 244; see Devaux
(1885-6): 4: 120-1]. The names of Odalric's parents are known to
be Rainard and Helvise from the Life of St. Gregory of Nicopolis
["... et oppidis illius regionis Pithuerim ... Erat
autem in eodem oppido quædam nobilis matrona, Ailvisa nomine,
bonæ memoriæ, quæ et ipsa genitrix unigenitum suum nomine
Odolricum, illius videlicet oppidi hæredem, qui et ipse postea
Aurelianensis Ecclesiæ factus est Episcopus; patre suo Rainardo
jam defuncto atque ante fores Romanæ Ecclesiæ sepulto,
amicabiliter educabat." Ex Vita et Miraculis S.
Gregorii Episc. Nicopol., RHF 11: 457]. Chronologically,
Hugues, son of Geoffroy and Helvise, and brother of count Rotrou
of Mortagne, is the obvious candidate to identify as the Hugues
de Mortagne who was a nephew of Odalric. Onomastics provides
further confirmation, since Geoffroy's wife and Odalric's mother
were both named Helvise.

Probable grandfather:Geoffroy (I),
fl. 967?-985, viscount of Châteaudun.Probable
grandmother:Hildegarde, d. after 1005.As discussed below in the Commentary
section, Geoffroy is apparently identified as the nepos
of Hildegarde's son bishop Hugues of Tours, which, if the word nepos
has its usual meaning of "nephew", would make Geoffroy
a grandson of Hildegarde and her probable husband Geoffroy (I).

Probable ancestor: Rotrou de Nogent, fl. 967?-996.Rotrou appears as a witness on a false act
of king Lothaire of France 7 July 967 ["S. Rotrochi"
Rec. actes Lothair & Louis V, 141 (#60), a falsification of
the 11th or 12th century, but perhaps based on an analysis of an
authentic act that had been lost]. His first certain appearance
is in an act of 8 September 975 ["S. Roterici"
Cart. S.-Benoît-sur-Loire, 1: 152 (#61)]. He then appears fairly
regularly for the next two decades, in charters of 5 February 978
["Rotrocus" Cart. S.-Père de Chartres, 1: 65
(#8)], 3 May 983 ["S. Rotrochii" Lex (1892),
122 (Pièces justificatives #1)], before 986 ["Rotrocus"
Cart. S.-Père de Chartres, 1: 72 (#13)], 985 ["S.
Rotroci" ibid, 1: 79 (#18)], 12 February 996 ["Signum
Ratroch." Lot (1903), 426], and 996×1001 ["S.
Rotroci." Lex (1892), 133 (Pièces justificatives #7)].
In addition to the above charters, in which Rotrou appears
without further designation, there are two charters which supply
additional information. One, dated 989, calls Rotrou a Norman
["S. Rotroci Normanni." Lex (1892), 125
(Pièces justificatives #3)]. Another, undated, is a donation by
Rotrou (called "de Nogent" in the heading of the
charter) of property in Thivars, near Chartres, to Saint-Père de
Chartres [heading: "De terra data in villa quæ Thevas
dicitur a Rotroco de Nogiomo." body of charter: "In
Dei nomine, Rotrocus seculari miliciæ deditus et Odonis comitis
fidelitati devotus, ..." Cart. S.-Père de Chartres, 1:
87 (#4)]. In addition, two twelfth century references mention
Rotrou in connection with the Perche during the wars of Richard I
of Normandy with Thibaud "le Tricheur", count of Blois
and Chartres. He is called count of the Perche by Wace in his Roman
de Rou ["Rotro, li quens del Perche"
Wace, Roman de Rou, 4134 (1: 187)], and he is connected
with the Corbonnais in the Norman chronicle of Benoît de
Sainte-More ["Rotrou e cil de Corbuneis"
Benoît de Sainte-More, 22564 (2: 244)]. Since the principal
possessions of Geoffroy (II) were at Nogent, and he gave his son
the very uncommon name Rotrou, the earlier Rotrou would make a
very plausible ancestor (grandfather?) of Geoffroy.

Commentary

As noted above, the mother of Geoffroy is well
documented to be a certain Melisende. However, besides count
Fulcois, several other fathers have been proposed for Geoffroy:

Falsely attributed
father:Geoffroy (I), fl. 967-985, viscount of Châteaudun.Falsely attributed
mother:Hildegarde. d. after 1005.[Boussard (1962), 312 n. 87, making
Geoffroy (II) a brother of archbishop Hugues] In this case, it
looks as if Boussard actually indended to make the Geoffroy who
died ca. 1038×9 the son of a previous viscount Geoffroy [as in
Murs, Romanet, Keats-Rohan, Settipani, above], but carelessly
left out the younger Geoffroy from his list.

Of these four alternatives, Boussard's error
need not concern us further, and the other three will be
discussed below.

The ancestry of Geoffroy (II)

Attempts to trace the ancestry of viscount
Geoffroy (II) of Châteaudun and of his son count Rotrou of
Mortagne have tried to piece together several indications from
the sources. First, they were viscounts of Châteaudun, so they
presumably need to fit into that family of viscounts in some way.
Second, the family property Geoffroy held seems to be
concentrated in the area of Nogent-le-Rotrou, so he was
presumably a descendant of Rotrou, the tenth century lord of that
place who had the rare name Rotrou also borne by one of
Geoffroy's sons. Third, his son Rotrou was count of Mortagne, so
a descent has been sought from one of the tenth century counts of
Mortagne named Hervé. Fourth, Rotrou names his avus
count Fulcois in a charter, and a place has to be found in the
genealogy for this otherwise unknown count Fulcois. As we shall
see, there are a number of variations in the genealogical trees
which have been put together from these pieces.

The Viscounts of Châteaudun

Of these families, only the viscounts of
Châteaudun appear in the records of the tenth and eleventh
centuries on a frequent enough basis to offer some hope of
getting a continuous account. Even then, as we shall see, there
are significant problems, for example, the existence of two
mothers of members of the family whose husbands are not
explicitly identified in the records. The following outline is
based mainly on the excellent summary given by Settipani
[Settipani (1997), 259-261].

A viscount Geoffroy appears regularly from
967 to soon after 986, as listed by Boussard, who does
not make it clear whether or not any of these documents
explicitly cite Geoffroy as viscount of Châteaudun
[Boussard (1962), 312 n. 84]. He appears in March 967
["Signum Gauzfredi vicecomitis" Cart.
S.-Julien de Tours, 60 (#21)], in May 975, 978 (or
February 979), and in 986×1011 (but apparently soon
after 986) in the cartulary of Saint-Florent de Saumur
[Boussard (1962), 312 n. 84, citing Cartulaire noir de
Saint-Florent de Saumur, Bibl. Nat., Nouv. acq. lat.
1930, fol. 11-12, 16 (not seen by me); see also Archives
d'Anjou, 241 (#13), 242 (#14), 243 (#20)], in October 983
as a vassal of archbishop Arduin of Tours ["...
Arduinus, misericordia Dei sanctæ Turonicæ sedis
archiepiscopus, ... de fideli nostro Gauzfrido vicecomiti
... Signum Gauzfridi vicecomitis, ad cujus beneficium
pertinere videtur" Cart. S.-Julien de Tours,
80-2 (#29)], and in 985 in a charter of Saint-Père de
Chartres ["S. Gauzfridi vicecomitis."
Cart. S.-Père de Chartres, 1: 79 (#18)]. Although there
is not any direct proof that all of these records are
references to the same Geoffroy, it is very probable that
they were.

In 989, Hugues, viscount of Châteaudun,
witnesses a charter of Robert, viscount of Blois ["S.
Hugonis, vicecomitis Castredunensis, ... S. Alonis de
Cayone castro, ..." Lex (1892), 125 (Pièces
justificatives #3)]. The Alo de Chinon who witnesses is
apparently the same man who is called brother of Hugues
in the next item. Settipani evidently confuses the
citation of this item with the next item.

On 12 February 996, viscount Hugues
appears as a witness with his brother Alo and an Albert
who might be his brother-in-law ["Signum Hugoni
vicecomitis. Signum Alonis fratris ejus. Signum Alberti."
Lot (1903), 426; cf. Lex (1892), 131 (Pièces
justificatives #6), which has Hugues and Alo, but not
Albert; Settipani (1997), 259 n. 237 incorrectly dates
this act 989, and gives a quote identical to the the
version of Lot, while citing Lex].

In October 1003, viscount Hugues witnesses
an act in which the brothers Helgaud and Hugues receive
property in Dunois ["... quidam homines, his
nominibus vocitati, Helgaudus et frater suus Hugo, ...
Actum Dunis Castro. S. Theobaldi comitis. S. Hugonis
vicecomitis." Cart. S.-Père de Chartres, 2:
399-400 (#1)]. Settipani would identify this Helgaud and
Hugues as sons of viscount Hugues, based partly on the
fact that archbishop Hugues of Tours is known to have had
a son named Helgaud [Settipani (1997), 260 & n. 242;
see below under 1003×23 for Helgaud].

Between 1005 and 1023, perhaps ca. 1020
(the date given by the editor), viscountess Hildegarde of
Châteaudun mentions her son archbishop Hugues, with
witnesses including Geoffroy, nepos of
archbishop Hugues, and Helgaud, son of the archbishop
["... ego Hildegardis, vicecomitissa
Castridunis, do sanctissimo Petro Carnotensis coenobii
alodum meum de Bello Monte, ..., assentiente et annuente
filio meo Hugone, archiepiscopo Turonorum' ...
auctoritateque filii mei archipræsulis Hugonis
anathematizatus permeneat. Hugo archipræsul. Gaufridi,
nepotis ejus. ..., Helgaudi, filii archiepiscopi"
Cart. S.-Père de Chartres, 1: 117-8 (#6); Settipani
erroneously gives 1003×28, but archbishop Hugues died in
1023]. Cuissard states that the charter was dated in the
ninth year of king Robert II, and dates the charter to
1005, but no such dating appears in the version of the
charter given by Guérard [Cuissard (1894-6), 35].
Romanet places the charter in 1005×23, but supposes that
it is closer to the earlier date [Romanet (1890-1902),
37].

As can be seen from the above outline, the
identification of individuals is less than clear in many of the
above sources. Nevertheless, we see that from before 967 to after
985 the viscount of Châteaudun was named Geoffroy. From before
989 to 1003×4 the viscount was named Hugues. From 1003×4 to ca.
1038×9 the viscount was named Geoffroy. However, the
genealogical connections are not completely obvious, and it is
not entirely clear whether or not there were consecutive
viscounts having the same name, so, for example, we have to allow
for the possibility that there were two viscounts named Geoffroy
during the period 1003×4 to ca. 1038×9. With the viscount
Geoffroy, son of Melisende, who died ca. 1038×9, we have reached
a better documented era, and he was succeeded by his two sons
Hugues and Rotrou. The principal problems of identification are
emphasized here by stating them as a series of ten interconnected
questions which appear to isolate the main problem areas. The
first four of these questions, discussed briefly here, are also
covered on the page of viscountess Hildegard, where they are more
relevant.

Question 1: Was the viscountess
Hildegard who appears in 980 the same person as viscountess
Hildegarde who was mother of archbishop Hugues?

It seems to have been generally assumed that
they were the same person. Although the gap of 25×43 years
between the records and the fact that the Hildegarde of 980,
sister of Gerberge, is not explicitly called viscountess of
Châteaudun suggest caution, the identity is plausible enough.

Question 2: Was the Hugues who appears
as viscount of Châteaudun from 989 to 1003 the same person as
Hugues, archbishop of Tours from 1005 to 1023?

As noted above, in 996×1001 viscount Hugues of
Châteaudun was also dean of Saint-Maurice de Tours, a clear
indication that he was also the same man as the later archbishop.
The fact that archbishop Hugues had a son supports this further.

Question 3: Who was the father of
archbishop Hugues?

Since Hildegarde, mother of Hugues, is called
viscountess of Châteaudun, there is a reasonable presumption
that the father of Hugues was a viscount of Châteaudun. Since
Hildegarde held the title of viscountess in 980, her husband was
presumably the person who was viscount at that time, namely
Geoffroy. On the other hand, a record of about 1000 calls
viscount Hugues (whom we have identified with archbishop Hugues)
the son of viscount Geoffroy. Thus, two independent lines of
argument would name Geoffroy as the father of viscount/archbishop
Hugues.

Question 4: How do the individuals
mentioned in the short chronicle of Bonneval fit in with the
other sources mentioned?

As noted above, the other sources give a
consistent picture of a viscount Geoffroy, his wife Hildegarde,
and their son viscount/archbishop Hugues, while the Bonneval
chronicle gives viscount Geoffroy and his wife Ermengarde and son
Hugues. The most likely conclusion is that the short chronicle of
Bonneval, a late source with many faults, has accidently
mistranscribed the name Hildigardis as Hermengardis
at some point in the transmission.

Question 5: Who was the father of
Melisende's son viscount Geoffroy?

With Melisende (living 1031×2), her son
viscount Geoffroy (d. ca. 1038×9), his wife Helvise, and their
sons viscount Hugues and count Rotrou, the genealogy of the
family of the counts of the Perche and viscounts of Châteaudun
becomes continuously documented. Thus, a crucial first step to
continuing the genealogy would be to determine who was the father
of Geoffroy and husband of Melisende. To my knowledge, four
candidates have been advanced, Guérin de Domfront (Bellême),
Geoffroy de Châteaudun, Fulcois, and Rotrou de Nogent. In
addition, a previous marriage of Melisende to Hervé II, count of
Mortagne, which left no children, has been proposed.

Many of the older secondary sources give
Guérin de Domfront as the father [e.g., Bry (1620), 137-8;
Anselme 3: 306]. This is ultimately based on the statement of
Orderic Vitalis that Guérin was the atavus (strictly,
great-great-great-grandfather) of count Rotrou of Perche,
great-great-grandson of Melisende ["Guarinus de
Damfronte, quem dæmones suffocaverunt Rotronis atavus fuit ..."
OV xiii, 3 (5: 3-4); Murs (1856), 66; Romanet (1890-1902), 39 n.
3]. Thus, a strict reading Orderic's statement would place
Guérin two generations before Geoffroy, but Guérin and Geoffroy
were contemporaries, and seem to have been in roughly the same
generation. As usual, birthdates are hard to find, but Guérin's
first cousin archbishop Gervaise of Reims was born in 1007 [Ex
chronico Remensi, RHF 10: 271; Annales Remenses et
Colonienses, MGH SS 16: 731; see the page of Hamon de Château-du-Loir] and Geoffroy's son Hugues was witnessing a charter no
later than 1029 [above], placing Geoffroy's likely birth well
before 1007, and making it very improbable that Guérin was two
generations before Geoffroy, and somewhat unlikely that he was in
an earlier generation. Thus, Orderic's atavus needs to
be more loosely interpreted, and Murs (quoting Forestier) has
provided examples where atavus was used for
"great-grandfather" [Murs (1856), 67]. The Vicomte de
Romanet suggested that Guérin was the father-in-law of
Geoffroy's son Rotrou, and he has been followed in this by most
modern authorities. While it would be nice to have better proof
of this, making Guérin the father-in-law of Rotrou is by far the
most likely interpretation of Orderic's testimony.

Thus, the candidacy of Guérin can be set
aside. Each of the other three candidates leads to another
question that needs to be answered. If there were two consecutive
viscounts of Châteaudun named Geoffroy in the period 1003-39,
then the elder of these would presumably be the husband of
Melisende. This leads to Question 6. On the other hand, if
Geoffroy son of Melisende was the only viscount of Châteaudun
during that period, then his father has to be sought elsewhere,
and there are two candidates who would seem to fit in somewhere,
either as the father of Geoffroy or in some other way. Rotrou de
Nogent is an obvious candidate who would seem to be related in
some manner, and Question 7 asks how he fits in. Finally, the
candidacy of count Fulcois, mentioned in 1051×60 as the
(deceased) avus of count Rotrou, is pursued in Question
8.

Based on a genealogy supposedly taken from the
cartulary of Saint-Denis de Nogent, Estournet has indicated that
Melisende was married first to Hervé II, count of Mortagne, by
whom she had no children, and then married Fulcois in about 985
[Estournet (1928), 118-9, citing Bibl. nat., ms. lat. 17049, p.
211]. Unfortunately, he does not quote the passage from the
manuscript, making it unclear if the Melisende in question was
the same Melisende, mother of Geoffroy, and in any case it is not
clear that the manuscript has any authority..

Question 6: Was there one or two
viscounts of Châteaudun named Geoffroy in the period from 1003
to 1039?

If it were not for the record of 1015×23
showing a viscount Geoffroy and his son of the same name, we
would have no reason to suspect two viscount Geoffroys in the
period 1003-39. The record of 1015×23 does not explicitly say
that the younger Geoffroy was later a viscount of Châteaudun,
but it certainly invites the possibility of a father-son
succession between the two Geoffroys. Thus, if Geoffroy son of
Melisende was the elder Geoffroy of the record of 1015×23, then
the younger Geoffroy would be a son who had probably died by
1031×2. On the other hand, if Geoffroy son of Melisende was the
younger Geoffroy of 1015×23, then there would have been a
father-son succession of Geoffroys occurring at some point
between 1015 and 1032. In the latter case, the answer to Question
5 would be that Melisende's husband was the elder Geoffroy. Since
there is good reason to believe that it was Fulcois who was the
father of Geoffroy son of Melisende (see Question 8 below), it
would follow that there was probably only one viscount Geoffroy
from 1003 to 1039, but this conclusion cannot be regarded as
definitive.

Question 7: How does Rotrou de Nogent
(fl. 967-996) fit into the family of the counts of Perche (if at
all)?

Rotrou appears as a witness (generally with no
title or location) from 975 (or perhaps 967) to 996. He appears
as Rotrocus de Nogiomo in the heading to one charter
[Cart. S.-Père de Chartres, 1: 87 (#4); see above for more
details]. The very uncommon name of Rotrou marks him as a
possible ancestor of the family, as does his connection to Nogent
(not so well documented as we would prefer). If Geoffroy's
probable connection to the viscounts of Châteaudun came through
his mother Melisende, then Rotrou would be a possible candidate
as the father of Geoffroy [e.g., Thompson (2002), 195-6
(hypothesis 2)]. An additional generation, making Rotrou a
grandfather of Geoffroy, would seem more likely.

Question 8: Who were count Rotrou's avus
count Fulcois and his avunculus
Hugues?

The strict definition of avus is
"grandfather", with the looser definition of
"ancestor" also being possible but less common. The
classical definition of avunculus is "maternal
uncle", but in medieval times it was commonly used for both
a paternal and maternal uncle, much less often as the brother of
a more distant ancestor. The specific case of interest here is
complicated by the fact that count Fulcois is unknown except for
the one document in which he called an avus of Rotrou,
and Rotrou's avunculus Hugues has also not been
unambiguously identified in any other early document. In the
modern secondary literature, Fulcois has been placed as the
paternal grandfather of Rotrou [Estournet, Saint-Phalle,
Settipani (2000)], as the maternal grandfather of Rotrou [Romanet
(1890-1902), 41; Settipani (1997); Thompson (2002), 197
(hypothesis 1)], as a more distant ancestor [Keats-Rohan (1997),
203 n. 73; Settipani (1999)], and as a great-grandfather of
Rotrou's wife [Thompson (2002), 197-9 (hypothesis 2)].

The last of these hypotheses would make count
Fulcois the father of Mathilde, wife of Guillaume I de Bellême,
and mother of Guérin de Domfront, father-in-law of count Rotrou,
and it would make Hugues the avunculus a brother of
Mathilde (both conjectural connections, since Mathilde's
parentage is unknown). In my opinion, this scenario has very
little to recommend it. In the vast majority of cases, the words avus
and avunculus referred to blood relatives, and it would
be very improbable for the terms to refer to more distant
relatives of the spouse, as Thompson is suggesting.

In the 1051×60 donation, count Rotrou calls
his avus Fulcois a count, but only refers to his father
Geoffroy as a viscount (although Rotrou does call his father comes
atque vicecomes in the 1078 charter mentioned above). Thus,
in order to explain Geoffroy's lack of comital title, it has been
suggested that Fulcois was the maternal grandfather of Rotrou
[Romanet (1890-1902), 41]. It was also pointed out that the
strictest definition of the word avunculus is
"maternal uncle" [Thompson (2002), 197], but that
argument has little weight, since avunculus was also
frequently used for paternal uncles. However, the biggest
problem, as has been noted above under viscount Geoffroy's wife
Helvise, is that she appears by good evidence to have been the
daughter of Rainard de Pithiviers and his wife Helvise, which, if
correct, would rule out the possibility that Fulcois was her
father.

This would evidently leave Fulcois as a
paternal ancestor of Rotrou, possibly as a distant paternal
ancestor, but more probably as the paternal grandfather. Indeed,
that seems to be the most likely interpretation of the charter,
which appears to name the paternal grandfather, paternal uncle,
and father, in that order. One problem is that if we assume that
Rotrou inherited his comital title from Fulcoin, then it is
difficult to see the line of succession to the title. The
suggestion that the comital title passed from from Fulcois to
Rotrou's avunculus Hugues and then to Rotrou runs into
the problem that Hugues is not given the title of count in
Rotrou's charter. It could have passed directly from Fulcois to
Rotrou if Fulcois survived Geoffroy, but we would expect to see
Geoffroy's father in the 1031×2 charter if he was then active.
It seems more likely that the title was in abeyance for a number
of years. Nevertheless, given that we have a good reason for
ruling out Fulcois as the maternal grandfather of Rotrou, it is
very probable that Fulcois was Rotrou's paternal grandfather.

As for Hugues, avunculus of Rotrou, he
can be plausibly (but not certainly) identified with Hugues du
Perche, direct male-line ancestor of the Plantagenets. See the
page of Hugues du
Perche for more on this.

Qusetion 9: Was the Geoffroy who was
mentioned as the nepos
of archbishop Hugues on two occasions the same person Geoffroy
son of Melisende?

The problem is that Geoffroy, nepos of
Hugues, is not explicitly called viscount in either of his
appearances (1003×23 and 1032), leaving open the possibility
that this nepos is just another relative of the same
name who has nothing to do with the succession to Châteaudun.
However, this is unlikely, since the two Geoffroys in the record
of 1015×23 were almost certainly close relatives of archbishop
Hugues, and therefore one of them was very probably the nepos
from the records of 1003×23 and 1032. The usual interpretation
has been that Geoffroy, son of Melisende, was a nephew of
archbishop Hugues, and indeed this was probably the case, but the
other alternatives should be briefly mentioned.

At first glance, one alternative would seem to
be that the nepos referred to a younger Geoffroy, son of
viscount Geoffroy and Helvise. However, this Geoffroy (if he
existed) was probably deceased by 1032, since he is not mentioned
in the foundation charter of Saint-Denis de Nogent. Also, the
younger Geoffroy would not be a nephew of Hugues, since Hugues,
son of Hildegard, was not a brother of Geoffroy, son of
Melisende. If there were two viscount Geoffroys, father and son,
then the nepos could be the elder of them, making
Geoffroy son of Melisende a grandnephew of Hugues. However, as we
have already observed, it is probable that Melisende's husband
was Fulcois, so that even though we cannot rule out this
scenario, it is unlikely. Another possibility would be that nepos
should be interpreted in some extended way. However, since nepos
usually means "nephew", and the term is used on two
independent occasions, a different meaning is much less likely.

Question 10: Was Geoffroy son of
Melisende a descendant of the dynasty of Châteaudun through his
father or through his mother?

If we accept that Melisende's son Geoffroy was
a nephew of archbishop Hugues, there is still the problem of
whether this relationship would be on the side of Geoffroy's
father or his mother. This in turn could depend heavily on the
identity of Melisende's husband. If Melisende's husband were an
earlier viscount Geoffroy, then he would probably be a brother of
archbishop Hugues. If Melisende's husband were Rotrou de Nogent,
then it would be Melisende who was probably a sister of Hugues.
However, as argued above, the most likely possibility is that
Melisende's husband was count Fulcois, but in that case it is
hard to determine which parent of Geoffroy was a sibling of
archbishop Hugues, because we have no indication of the ancestry
of Fulcois. Thus, although it is probable that Geoffroy (II) was
a grandson of the viscountess Hildegarde and her probable husband
Geoffroy (I), the identity of the intervening generation remains
uncertain. See the page of Melisende for a more detailed
discussion of this question.

Conjectured daughter (unconvincing): Rotrude, mother of Herbert de Gallardon.
Rotrude is mentioned as the mother of Hervé de Gallardon in a
charter of Saint-Père de Chartres, before 1080 ["quidam
miles, Herbertus nomine, de Galardone castro, ..., una cum
consensu filiorum suorum, Hervei scilicet atque Fulcherii et
unicæ filiæ, nomine Guiburgis, ... alodum quem mater sua
Rotrudis possedit, ..." Cart. S.-Père de Chartres, 224
(#101)]. Merlet conjectures that Rotrude was a daughter of
Geoffroy, partly on the onomastic similarity between the names
Rotrude and Rotrou, and partly because Gallardon had earlier been
in possession of Geoffroy, viscount of Châteaudun [Merlet
(1860), 186-7]. While the relationship is possible, the evidence
is not very convincing.

OV = Augustus le Prevost, ed. Orderici
Vitalis Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ, 5 vols. (Paris, 1838-55);
also available in Marjorie Chibnall, ed. & trans., The
Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, 6 vols. (Oxford,
1969-80). As I do not have easy access to all volumes of
Chibnall's edition, citations here are given from Prevost's
edition.

Settipani (1999) = Christian Settipani,
"Les vicomtes de Châteaudun et leur alliés", Prosopon
10 (1999). [This is an earlier version of Settipani (2000), but
there are significant differences. The genealogical tables have
been poorly converted to .pdf format, and are difficult to
interpret.]